The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Feminism is necessary in modern day United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 264 times Debate No: 92045
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




In the United States of America, the government have given both men and women the same rights, but feminists are still rampant. This would not be a big if the feminist stuck to their morals, but while the dictionary definition of feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men, individual feminists have demonstrated otherwise and have turned this once proud movement into a cult.

Here are my rules:

- The first round will be accepting the challenge only.
- The final round will be our closing arguments, and no new evidence will be brought up.
- All feminists will be held accountable for their actions and their radical actions are fair game when demonstrating how this movement is deteriorating.
- We will not personally attack each other or resort to ad hominems.
- Data must be backed by credible sources.


Hello! I will debate this topic with you and I agree to all of the rules in your previous round. Since round 1 is usually introductions, I will not post any arguments or offer evidence. Round 2 can formally begin the debate with your points.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright then. Round two begins. I keep this simple, since it is only the first round.

I would first like to point out that I am all for equality between men and women, and that I myself am female. In fact, if feminists actually stayed true to their morals, I'd call myself a feminist. First off, I would like to address why the movement is unneeded in the U.S. Secondly, I will explain how feminism is now corrupted with dogma. Finally, I'll discuss the good things feminists could do if they focused on underprivileged women in third world countries rather than a false wage gap and the inevitable sexual desires of men.

Many feminists claim that the wage gap is a reason why feminism is still needed in America. However, the wage gap does not account for the following the fact that men are more likely to pursue STEM jobs, which pay more [1], and that women take off work for maternity. In fact, if you compare childless men to women under 30, women make $1.08 on a man's dollar. [2]

Women also receive lesser sentences than men for the same crimes. [3]

Most importantly, there are no rights men have that are denied to women, and there are laws protecting them from being discriminated against.

Next, I would like to discuss the feminists who have given this movement a bad name:

- Amanda Childress thinks that men accused of rape should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
- Robin Morgan believes hating men is honorable.
- Andrea Dworkin wants to see a man beaten and gagged.
- Sheila Cronin believes marriage is slavery, and Andrea Dworkin believes it is rape.
- Sharon Stone wants to use her power to hurt men.
- Catherine MacKinnon believes that if a woman doesn't like sex, even if she consented, she was raped.
- Jodie Foster believes that women are victims by nature.
- Susan Griffin believes a vast majority of men are rapists.
- David Angier believes women shouldn't be punished for trying to get men falsly arrested.
- Catherine Comins believes man who are falsely accused of rape can learn from the experience.
- Barbara Jordan believes men are incapable of compassion.
- Sally Miller Gearhart believes that the population of men should be reduced to 10%. Mary Daly wants the male population to be reduced as well.

It seems that more and more people are adhering to these feminist hierarchs. Even the feminists who aren't radical pay no heed to the issues men face and have at least a little bit of misandrist values instilled in them by notorious radical and semi-radical feminists who exaggerate issues and even directly lie to the women they are trying to help in order to evoke emotion. On top of all that, these radial feminists are the same people who tell first world women they are victims of the "patriarchy," start charities benefiting the most privileged women on earth, and completely forget about women and girls who are actually being oppressed. Then, when you tell them their movement is useless, they will remind you about all the females in third world countries that need their help. Instead of helping, they complain about it on Tumblr, and even have the audacity to lump these poor women's problems in with their own. I know not all feminists are like this, but many are, and their voices are loud. Too loud. Sometimes their voices can drown out the wales of women in need. I will now present to you an example:

Lets talk about a online video series outspoken feminist Anita Sarkeesian is raising money for. It is called Ordinary Women: Daring to Defy History, which as of May 31, 2016, Sarkeesian has raised $207,138 for it to be made. Remember that, because she herself states, "In an astounding, humbling turn of events, Tropes vs Women in Video Games drew international attention"both positive and negative"and Feminist Frequency raised over twenty-five times the amount we sought. We put it to good use: in the four years since, Feminist Frequency has transformed into a non-profit organization devoted to critically engaging with media." [4] Did she put it to good use? What she promised to do with to money she got was create a series of twelve videos about how women are portrayed in video games. The videos she promised are as follows: The Damsel in Distress, The Fighting Fucktoy, The Sexy Sidekick, The Sexy Villan, Women as Background Decorations, Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress, Women as Reward, Mrs. Male Character, Unattractive = Evil, Man With Boobs, Positive Female Characters, and The Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games. As of March 8, 2016, she has made three. Sarkeesian said she needed $6,000 all twelve videos, she raised $158,922 for them, and in four years, she has made three of the twelve videos. [5]

The worst part about all of this, it that she is tricking deluded feminists into putting money right in her pocket. Don't let the fact that it is labeled as a non-profit trick you into thinking she didn't get any money. [6] All of that money she made could have gone to girls who are forced into marriage and treated as objects in countries where women have limited rights, and instead western feminists trick women (and themselves) into believing they are victims even if they aren't




I will start the round with my main points, defending them if necessary, then go on to address my opponents points.

I start off with the logic that if there is substantial inequality against women in any of the following grounds, social, political or economic, feminism is inherently necessary to maintain a just nation. This point is logically valid, as any injustice should warrant a people's movement to erect it. I will prove that there is indeed specifically political and economic injustice which warrants feminist movements.

Point 1) Women are paid substantially less then men in contemporary US, therefore warranting feminist movements. From the AAUW, in 2014, women working full time are paid 79% of men's average wages. My opponent attacks this claim by stating that men are more likely to pursue STEM jobs, which pay more. I agree with that, but that actually proves my point. Men are more likely to pursue stem jobs. That itself should be changed and is an injustice. Women need to be empowered to take those stem jobs, hence warranting feminist movements. Also, my opponent states that maternity leave accounts for the pay gap. This is another injustice that feminism movements should try to overturn. Childbirth and infancy is a difficult time for women, and the government should offer some form of subsidy to help women instead of cutting pay. Furthermore, my statistic doesn't even account for maternity leave as it only deals with full time working women, therefore, my opponents point is irrelevant. As conclusion, women working full time are paid less then men, this suggests an economic inequality in society that warrants feminist movements to counter it.

Point 2) Women are underrepresented in the government. Daily Kos. com states that women account for 51% of population but only 17% of Congress. This is stated in Senator Gillibrand's diary. This percentage of women serving in government is extremely low. In comparison, countries like Burundi, South Africa, Rwanda, Uganda and South Sudan have a higher percentage of women in government. Furthermore, all countries listed above are from Africa, bear that in mind. Also, even Afghanistan has a greater percentage of women in government than the US. This shows that the United States has an unequal representation of women in the government. This form of inequality must be amended by feminist movements.

Point 3) Societal norms enforce inequality against women. states that In the U.S., masculine roles are usually associated with strength, aggression, and dominance, while feminine roles are associated with passivity, nurturing, and subordination. These societal expectations enforce stereotyping which in turn leads to sexism. Gender roles are also often reinforced, leading to phenomenon my opponent actually brought up such as women being less likely to pursue STEM jobs. Thus, social norms that stereotype against women must be brought down, and feminism is a means to accomplish this. Thus feminism is necessary in the modern United States.

The bulk of my opponents arguments are claims against specific feminists and feminist movements. I agree that certain feminists are taking the movement too far, and that is not beneficial to societal well being, but one cannot take specific instances and generalize them towards a movement as a whole. For example. many instances of unjust violence are associated with the African American suffrage campaign such as the Black panthers, a militant group that depended on violence to enforce black rights. One cannot use a specific group or act such as the Black panthers ( and label the whole act as "unnecessary". I understand that my opponents cites multiple acts and people, but even so, she offers no statistic on exactly what percent of feminists are radical. Since you cannot use specific people to brand an act as necessary or unnecessary, my opponents main offense falls.

Furthermore, my opponent states that we should focus our efforts on other countries and that US feminist movements are diverting the attention. But as you look at my statistic, many African countries actually have more women in the government then US and the United States desperately needs to catch up in terms of gender equality.
In conclusion, economic, political and social inequality inherently warrants feminism if we are to pursue a just United States.

I conclude my arguments with a summary. There are social, political and economic injustices in the American society. Feminism is needed to counteract those injustices. Even though certain feminists were radical and unjust, we cannot brand the entire movement as unnecessary on the basis of those few individuals. Because I feel like gender inequality is prevalent in the modern United States, it is necessary.
Debate Round No. 2


Plenty of feminists stay true to their morals, and feminism (if only take the dictionary definition into account), is all for equality. Despite this, you cannot deny the feminist movement is deteriorating, and women have the same rights as men in the Untied States.

Name one right that the United States government grants men and not women. I have yet to receive an answer. You also say that if there is substantial inequality, feminism is required. There isn't substantial inequality in America.

Response to Point One: The fact that men are more likely to have STEM jobs isn't an injustice. Men are more likely to pursue STEM jobs due to their nature. Believe it or not, women and men are different, and not just because of culture or "brainwashing." Psychology is one STEM field that is dominated by women. [1] This makes sense, since women are more in tune with others' emotions, can better tell what others are thinking, and can analyze social situations with more accuracy than men could. [2] Women don't need to be "encouraged" to pursue STEM jobs, they need to be encouraged to do what they love, and to not be pressured into STEM jobs by people who judge women by what job they have. If they want a STEM job, fine. If they want to be a teacher, fine. If they want to work at McDonald's, fine. If they want to be a housewife, that's fine too. Feminism shouldn't promote specific carriers for women, but encourage women to choose whatever carrier choice they wish.

Also, women shouldn't be paid for simply being pregnant. If women want to have I baby, fine. I don't see why they would want to, but to each her own. Still, if they aren't working, they shouldn't be paid (unless, of course, they are disabled and cannot work). If you don't have the money to have a baby, you shouldn't have a baby. This is why I advocate for free abortion, especially to those who cannot afford it. However, this is coming from someone who supports eugenics and birth control, so I can easily see other anti-feminists disagreeing with me.

Response to Point Two: While I believe the United States Government is corrupt, elections are as fair as the voters allow them to be. Congressmen and women are elected by popular vote, so if women run and aren't elected, that was the decision of the general population. While you may not agree with the decision, the majority of people do.

There are some ignorant voters though, which is why I believe voters should be required to take a political knowledge test before they vote.

Response to Point Three: I don't agree with enforcing gender roles, but you do realize gender roles aren't the only reason women and men act different? Natural tenancies came before gender roles, and can explain why they exist. Men are physically stronger than women, so it makes sense that people associate men with strength relative to women. Men are more aggressive and dominant than women because they have more testosterone. [3] [4] Women are less likely to pursue STEM jobs than men because male and female brains function differently, as I've stated earlier. Humans see patterns, so they notice when a sex generally acts differently than the other.

The mere existence of gender roles doesn't warrant a movement. Gender roles are misused, yes, but don't effect the average woman in the United States as much as you may think it does.

The reason I pointed out specific events is because western feminism has grown so useless it has no where else to go but downhill. There is not much else women need to fight for in America, so the movement is beginning to just make stuff up.

The patriarchy, the wage gap, anything! Just as long as we can satisfy the victim complexes of feminist sheep! We'll make them feel proud just for having a jobs, as women! Imagine that!

And you ask for a percentage of radical feminist, which is a statistic you cannot calculate. Instead of fighting for women, feminists begin to attack men. We see this more and more often, and it will only get worse. This isn't a reason feminism is useless, it is a result. You must understand that, because you completely and utterly missed my point.

It also wasn't my main argument, but my longest one. That doesn't really matter though.

Then, you go on to dismiss the problems of women in other countries by saying, "Oh, there are some countries in Africa with more women in government than us. Yep, argument debunked."

Afghanistan my have more women in government than the U.S., but that doesn't make the general consensus magically less sexist. 87% of Afghani women admit to experience domestic violence. Afghanistan is also the the only country in the whole world where women commit suicide more than men.

Now let's address some African countries, because we can't declare an entire continent as woman friendly, now can we?

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, "rapes are so brutal and so systematic that UN investigators have called them unprecedented." [5] DRC has even earned the title “rape capital of the world." [6]

Militias in Sudan use systematic rape as a demographic weapon. This is another country where rape culture is very real and frightening. [5]

In Chad, another country in Africa, while 77% of boys were going to elementary school, only 55% of girls were enrolled in elementary school. Only 28% of women in Chad are literate, but almost half of men are. [7]

I could go on, but I'll save your time.




So, I would first like to note, that my opponent does not disagree with my overarching observation, that gender inequality makes feminism necessary, so this debate now boils down to whether there is sufficient inequality in America. Thus, if I can prove there exists sufficient inequality in any of the three grounds, (social, political, economic) I have effectively won the debate, now, I will defend my points and continue to attack my opponents points.

Point 1) On the question of the wage gap, my opponent attributes this difference in wages to the fact that men biologically are more likely to take STEM jobs that are high paying. She states that women shouldn"t be pressured into STEM jobs, they need to be encouraged to do what they love. This fact is well and good, but it is not the only reason that women are being paid less. From RISMedia, there are three reasons why women are paid less than men, only one of which is the fact that women gravitate towards lower paying jobs. My opponent ignores two critical reasons.

1) Women ask for less money. RIS states that according to a study published by HIRED, women ask for lower salaries then men, and leave the table with less money. Also, women ask for an average $14,000 less in compensation than men overall nationwide. This fact needs to be remedied. This has nothing to do with job interests and what women love to do, women generally are too timid and need to learn to be more confident in their skills when searching for employment. Thus women should be empowered to ask for more when they search for jobs, hence warranting feminist movements.

2) Discrimination against women is present in the workplace. RIS states that research shows that many women with same credentials who work in the same exact jobs as men earn less. Furthermore, women who chose to work in high paying jobs, previously dominated by men, such as biologists and designers, had their compensation in those jobs declined. In order to ensure an equal and just America, we need to get rid of workplace discrimination, feminism is a means to that end.

Furthermore, in response to my point one, my opponent quotes that the pregnancy leave causes women to be paid less. The statistic that I used to justify my claim of the wage gap stated that women"s wages are 79% of men"s average wages. Thus my statistic doesn"t even take maternity leave into consideration because my statistic deals with wages not pay per se.

Point 2) Attacking my point 2, my opponent states that it is the people that choose to vote for men, not women for office, but she fails to consider the following. From School of Public Affairs (SPA), reasons there are less women in office than men include:

1)Women are less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office. SPA states that a 2001 study shows that men are 60% more likely than women to assess themselves as "very qualified" to run for office. Furthermore, (from SPA) the gender gap does not stem from gender differences in direct political experiences, or exposure to and familiarity with, the political arena. Thus, this gender differential in confidence is arbitrary. Feminism is necessary to empower women into being more confident.
2)Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office. SPA states that in a study, a less percentage of women than men have received the suggestion to run for office. The study even breaks the results into separate categories and women are shown to be lower in EVERY category. Thus, feminism is necessary to empower women into believing that they should run for office.

Point 3) My opponent attributes gender roles to biological differences but that is not entirely the case. University of Notre Dame states that gender theorists point to the variations in gender roles observed among different cultures in arguing that gender " our masculinity or femininity " is a social construct rather than an innate biological characteristic. Thus, biological aspects play a role, but do not solely make up gender roles. Furthermore, the problem with gender roles is not that it itself is inherently unjust. It leads to discrimination. I am not advocating abolishing gender roles because as my opponent pointed out, it will always exist. I think that feminism is need to spread the message that it is ok to break those gender roles. Many women feel constrained by their gender expectations, which is something feminism can aim to fix.

I"ll move on to attack my opponent"s arguments.

She states that feminism has become useless, and as a result, feminists are making stuff up to attack and many are attacking men. I completely agree with the fact that THOSE feminists are unnecessary and are not doing much to further the cause of true gender equality in America. But, notice in those arguments she herself even admits that the statistic for how many feminists actually do this is impossible to obtain. Thus, the actual number of feminists that are "useless" can be as low as 1% for all we know. Since she does not offer any evidence on the amount of feminists that are useless and disrespectful, one cannot take those specific feminists that she pointed out and generalize them as the face of the ENTIRETY of feminism. She also states that claim that we see this more and more often and it will only get worse, but NOWHERE does she justify this claim with any evidence.

My opponents argues that relative to other countries, America is already pretty ahead in terms of gender equality, so feminism isn"t necessary. But, as a more developed country this is a given, because we are much more developed then Africa, we SHOULD be more gender equal. What is shocking, is that we have less percentage of females in government than some of those countries, which is the point that I am making. Furthermore, we are not even debating whether feminism is necessary in Africa, only in America, I am just using Africa as a basis of comparison. We shouldn"t be setting our standards as low as African countries, which is why it is shocking that some of those countries have more females in government as us.
Debate Round No. 3


corporealbeing forfeited this round.


I forfeit as well
Debate Round No. 4


corporealbeing forfeited this round.


chrispan68 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by corporealbeing 4 months ago
@Vict0rian Same here. :3
Posted by Vict0rian 4 months ago
I feel like it is necessary for people to be feminists but not for the US but third world countries that are actually patriarchal.
No votes have been placed for this debate.